Senate GOP Warns They Will Shut Down The Senate

[rightwinger]

How Authoritarian of you. What's next, make the Bush Family hereditary rulers?

Do you understand why the founders intended the Senators to be appointed by the Governors?

Was it the same reason they only gave the vote to white male property owners?

Basicaly, yes

By having Senators appointed by the wealthy they could keep the Congressmen elected by the masses in check. There is also no accountability

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see a signed budget coming out of the House?


What happened? Does passing a House budget that slashes taxes and has no chance of meeting a consensus in Congress constitute a passed budget?

Evidently not

It does, the senate is supposed to take it up, make the changes they want, then go to a conference committee to work out a compromise. Reid refuses to do even that

Why does, "Reid refuses to do even that"? I know, do you?

Unless your answer is because he can you are wrong. The simple proff of that is he didn't even pass a budget when Nancy was still speaker of the House, and the Democrats had a large enough majority to pass anything they wanted. That alone proves it is not about the Republicans, like you think it is.

 

[Care4all]

It does, the senate is supposed to take it up, make the changes they want, then go to a conference committee to work out a compromise. Reid refuses to do even that

Why does, "Reid refuses to do even that"? I know, do you?

Unless your answer is because he can you are wrong. The simple proff of that is he didn't even pass a budget when Nancy was still speaker of the House, and the Democrats had a large enough majority to pass anything they wanted. That alone proves it is not about the Republicans, like you think it is.

you mean the mere 90 days out of the last 4 years that democrats had a super majority that could have passed anything in the Senate?

 

[OKTexas]

Do you understand why the founders intended the Senators to be appointed by the Governors?

Was it the same reason they only gave the vote to white male property owners?

Basicaly, yes

By having Senators appointed by the wealthy they could keep the Congressmen elected by the masses in check. There is also no accountability

Yep, they would be acccountable to the state, the way the founders intended, instead of the wealthy that fund their elections. The intent was to have the house accountable to the people and the senate accountable to the states, now no one is accountable to anyone except their donors. No one should be able to donate to a campaign that is not physically located in the area the politician represents.

 

[rightwinger]

Was it the same reason they only gave the vote to white male property owners?

Basicaly, yes

By having Senators appointed by the wealthy they could keep the Congressmen elected by the masses in check. There is also no accountability

Yep, they would be acccountable to the state, the way the founders intended, instead of the wealthy that fund their elections. The intent was to have the house accountable to the people and the senate accountable to the states, now no one is accountable to anyone except their donors. No one should be able to donate to a campaign that is not physically located in the area the politician represents.

Senators would be accountable to the Governors who appointed them

Right now...Senators are accountable to the PEOPLE of the state they represent

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you understand why the founders intended the Senators to be appointed by the Governors?

Was it the same reason they only gave the vote to white male property owners?

Basicaly, yes

By having Senators appointed by the wealthy they could keep the Congressmen elected by the masses in check. There is also no accountability

I have no idea why no one actually looks at history before they start pontificating on it. Nothing in the Constitution required governors to appoint Senators, all the it actually says is that each state will determine how the tow senators are chosen. There were multiple methods in use over time, but most states had already switched to having them elected by popular vote before the 17th Amendment was passed. If you want to act all superior over the people that think we should repeal the 17th just point out that it would just let the states chose to elect them anyway, you will end up looking a lot more informed, and still be able to call them stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why does, "Reid refuses to do even that"? I know, do you?

Unless your answer is because he can you are wrong. The simple proff of that is he didn't even pass a budget when Nancy was still speaker of the House, and the Democrats had a large enough majority to pass anything they wanted. That alone proves it is not about the Republicans, like you think it is.

you mean the mere 90 days out of the last 4 years that democrats had a super majority that could have passed anything in the Senate?

No, I mean the two years that Democrats controlled the House of Representatives.

Just an FYI, budgets only require a majority vote, and cannot be filibustered anyway, so pointing out Reid did not have a super majority when we are talking about the budget makes you look even dumber than you usually do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It does, the senate is supposed to take it up, make the changes they want, then go to a conference committee to work out a compromise. Reid refuses to do even that

Why does, "Reid refuses to do even that"? I know, do you?

Unless your answer is because he can you are wrong. The simple proff of that is he didn't even pass a budget when Nancy was still speaker of the House, and the Democrats had a large enough majority to pass anything they wanted. That alone proves it is not about the Republicans, like you think it is.

I do believe it is about both the Republicans and the rules of the Senate. In a word "Riders".

[rider - Informal term for a nongermane amendment to a bill or an amendment to an appropriation bill that changes the permanent law governing a program funded by the bill.]

 

[OKTexas]

Basicaly, yes

By having Senators appointed by the wealthy they could keep the Congressmen elected by the masses in check. There is also no accountability

Yep, they would be acccountable to the state, the way the founders intended, instead of the wealthy that fund their elections. The intent was to have the house accountable to the people and the senate accountable to the states, now no one is accountable to anyone except their donors. No one should be able to donate to a campaign that is not physically located in the area the politician represents.

Senators would be accountable to the Governors who appointed them

Right now...Senators are accountable to the PEOPLE of the state they represent

Guess you missed my other post, senators were never appointed by governors, they were appointed by state legislatures, see article 1 section 3, clause 1. That was changed in favor of direct elections by the 17th admendment. Now senators answer to their parites and their donors, not the states, it's very rare that someone is elected to the senate that is not a party favorite, although it did happen here in TX this year.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why does, "Reid refuses to do even that"? I know, do you?

Unless your answer is because he can you are wrong. The simple proff of that is he didn't even pass a budget when Nancy was still speaker of the House, and the Democrats had a large enough majority to pass anything they wanted. That alone proves it is not about the Republicans, like you think it is.

I do believe it is about both the Republicans and the rules of the Senate. In a word "Riders".

[rider - Informal term for a nongermane amendment to a bill or an amendment to an appropriation bill that changes the permanent law governing a program funded by the bill.]

I would think that Reid would be informed enough to know that riders to the budget have to go back to the House for approval, and that, since Nancy Pelosi controlled the House with an iron fist from 2006 to 2010, all he had to do was let her know he wouldn't have a single problem if the riders were stripped out in conference committee.

On the other hand, I expect you to be hopelessly uninformed an incompetent.

 

[Mustang]

Democrats would have to be crazy (or stupid) to give in to Republican threats when everyone knows that Republicans will only continue to use the filibuster in a way that it was never intended to be used simply to continue to obstruct any legislation they don't like by denying a free and fair up or down vote to measures they can't otherwise stop.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Senate GOP Warns They Will Shut Down The Senate

Yeah....sure......John McCain threatened to filibuster Susan Rice's nomination for Sec. Of State, too.

 

[Vel]

Basicaly, yes

By having Senators appointed by the wealthy they could keep the Congressmen elected by the masses in check. There is also no accountability

Yep, they would be acccountable to the state, the way the founders intended, instead of the wealthy that fund their elections. The intent was to have the house accountable to the people and the senate accountable to the states, now no one is accountable to anyone except their donors. No one should be able to donate to a campaign that is not physically located in the area the politician represents.

Senators would be accountable to the Governors who appointed them

Right now...Senators are accountable to the PEOPLE of the state they represent

As OKTexas rightly pointed out, it was the state legislatures that selected the senators. It is only in cases where a sitting senator can't serve that the Governor himself chooses. By allowing the electorate to choose the senators, we removed a balance in the political system. Too much power has been ceded to the federal government from the states.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats would have to be crazy (or stupid) to give in to Republican threats when everyone knows that Republicans will only continue to use the filibuster in a way that it was never intended to be used simply to continue to obstruct any legislation they don't like by denying a free and fair up or down vote to measures they can't otherwise stop.

Republicans have abused their filibuster privileges to gridlock the legislative process.

Time to revoke their privilege

 

[Mustang]

Democrats would have to be crazy (or stupid) to give in to Republican threats when everyone knows that Republicans will only continue to use the filibuster in a way that it was never intended to be used simply to continue to obstruct any legislation they don't like by denying a free and fair up or down vote to measures they can't otherwise stop.

Republicans have abused their filibuster privileges to gridlock the legislative process.

Time to revoke their privilege

My understanding is that there's only one day (the FIRST day of the new Congress legislative session) when the rule(s) can be changed. The abuses of the last few years makes changing the rules a necessary measure. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats would have to be crazy (or stupid) to give in to Republican threats when everyone knows that Republicans will only continue to use the filibuster in a way that it was never intended to be used simply to continue to obstruct any legislation they don't like by denying a free and fair up or down vote to measures they can't otherwise stop.

Republicans have abused their filibuster privileges to gridlock the legislative process.

Time to revoke their privilege

My understanding is that there's only one day (the FIRST day of the new Congress legislative session) when the rule(s) can be changed. The abuses of the last few years makes changing the rules a necessary measure. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Republicans lied the last time when they agreed to scale down their filibusters

Fool me once....

 

[Mustang]

Republicans have abused their filibuster privileges to gridlock the legislative process.

Time to revoke their privilege

My understanding is that there's only one day (the FIRST day of the new Congress legislative session) when the rule(s) can be changed. The abuses of the last few years makes changing the rules a necessary measure. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Republicans lied the last time when they agreed to scale down their filibusters

Fool me once....

I would like to see future filibusters actually involve the physical requirement to take and hold the floor ala "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" instead of simply invoking a procedural measure. Then let the press report on the filibuster and why the Republicans are engaging in it. Let them make their argument to the American people. Let's have some friggin' democracy and the debate that comes along with it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Senate GOP Warns They Will Shut Down The Senate

Yeah....sure......John McCain threatened to filibuster Susan Rice's nomination for Sec. Of State, too.

Yeah...............and just this weekend on the news talk shows, he said that he would support her and that she should be given the opportunity to prove herself as capable.

What a difference 10 days makes, eh?

 

[rightwinger]

My understanding is that there's only one day (the FIRST day of the new Congress legislative session) when the rule(s) can be changed. The abuses of the last few years makes changing the rules a necessary measure. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Republicans lied the last time when they agreed to scale down their filibusters

Fool me once....

I would like to see future filibusters actually involve the physical requirement to take and hold the floor ala "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" instead of simply invoking a procedural measure. Then let the press report on the filibuster and why the Republicans are engaging in it. Let them make their argument to the American people. Let's have some friggin' democracy and the debate that comes along with it.

I agree

Right now they just call filibuster and nobody hears about it. Let him stand in the limelight for 24 hours and justify why he is holding up the legislation

 

[Jarlaxle]

Has the senate been open for the last couple of years? You wouldn't know it.

A lotta talk, not a lotta action.

Works for me.